Colston Statue

[Alex]

Apologies if someone else has posted about this.  I've just read that the four lefties who toppled the statue of Edward Colston in Bristol have been cleared of a criminal damage charge  the defendants laughed as the verdicts were returned, prompting cheers from the gallery.  I'm sure this was all filmed and shown on TV News, so how have they got away with this ?

[klondike]

Sounds like it. How is the question for me though.

[Alex]

Does this mean the statue of Alex Ferguson can be taken down from outside Old Trafford with no fear of jail ?  asking for a friend....

[Diasi]

In normal circumstances the chances of 12 normal random jury members, all watching the video which showed, in clear detail, the four defendants toppling the statue, & then deciding that the defendants didn't commit criminal damage is virtually impossible.

Therefore the only logical explanation has to be one of three reasons.

a: the jury was carefully selected.

b: the jury had been instructed what verdict they were expected to reach.

c: the jury members were aware of threats to them.

The major flaw in the UK jury system is that the jury members can't discuss the case or flag-up any shenanigans.

[Wandering Walter]

Jurors are selected at random     

[klondike]

The panel may be but sfaik the defence can reject some but that may only be in serious cases. My question here is why is a case of criminal damage being held before a jury? Surely it should be a matter for magistrates. Hopefull Cass will be able to comment once the sun shows its face in the new world.

[Wandering Walter]

As I understand it Criminal Damage is an offence that can be tried either way, in a Magistrates Court or a Crown Court based on the severity of the damage caused, a Magistrate can decide to either hear it or send it to the Crown Court, not certain but I believe the Defendant can ask to be tried in the Court Court .

Both defence and prosecution can object to Jurors if they wish but only so many, 

[klondike]

Fairy snuff.

God only knows how they got off.

[Michael Rolls]

The fact that they did is a total and utter disgrace
Mike

[Jacqueline]

We can now go out and deface anything we don't like or agree with, is that how it works? Where shall we go next? any ideas? lets all go on a wrecking spree. Anachy rules and we have a court ruling to prove it.

[klondike]

Actually I doubt it set any precedent. Plenty of obviously guilty fok have been acquitted of all sorts of crimes because a jury thought their actions were justified. What I find disturbing was that that happened here. A sure sign that the jury must have largely been millenials and wokistas. They wouldn't have been let off had I had a say - no question of guilt as they admitted that. Their plea being that their actions were justified. I wonder if I kicked every one of them up the arse I could get off on the same grounds.

[Wandering Walter]

No it does not what it says to me is the evidence was not strong enough to convict them, they won't be the first ones to be found not guilty of Criminal Damage or any other Criminal Offence

[Jacqueline]

Evidence not strong enough? They were caught red handed, admitted their guilt, what other proof do you need?

[GrannyMac]

Bristol has had a black mayor for some years.  Why no campaign to have either: a) the statue removed, perhaps to a museum, or b) an informative plaque erected explaining how Colston made his fortune (slave trade, bad) and how he used the money (education, almshouses etc., good).

I'm pretty disgusted by the verdict.

[Flying Bomb]

The law is becoming a bigger Ass each day.
Next step now for the criminals, Churchill's statue.